Skip to Content

Chattanooga Shooting, If Linked to ISIS, is a Legitimate Act of War

It's not terrorism if it's retaliation or reciprocal action

 

I'm not a fan of war or of killing of any kind, but the labeling of the deadly attack by Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez on two US military sites in Chattanooga, Tennessee as an act of terror is absurd.

Maybe Abdulazeez will turn out to have been a nut-case bent on committing "suicide by police." There are plenty of those kinds of psychos in the gun-soaked culture of America. But what we're hearing,

increasingly, is that he was somehow linked to Middle East jihad, and ultimately to ISIS, and that he is therefore a "terrorist."

That is ridiculous!

If it turns out that Abdulazeez was in any way linked to ISIS, then his action in attacking US military personnel in the US and killing them has to be seen not as terrorism but as a legitimate retributive act of war. That is no dishonor to those Marines killed. It simply makes it clear that they were killed in a war, not by some crazy person.

US citizens need to start accepting the reality that if the United States is going to go around the world blowing up people with fighter-bombers, special forces actions and drone missile attacks, eventually the targets of those aggressive acts of war will start responding against the US in kind. And they would have a legal right to do this under the rules of war.

Was the Chattanooga shooting an act of terrorism or an act of war? (Think before answering)Was the Chattanooga shooting an act of terrorism or an act of war? (Think before answering)
 

 

If Abdulazeez turns out to have been retaliating against the US for its attacks on ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, or simply that he was conducting an action reciprocal in nature to those conducted by US forces in the Middle East, then he was a legitimate combatant, not a terrorist. Had he been captured instead of "neutralized" as the police reported in their sterilized lingo, he would properly have been treated as a prisoner of war, at least in any country that actually adheres to the Geneva Conventions to which the US is a signatory. Of course, the US has long since tossed those hoary conventions into the trash bin, considering itself to be an "exceptional" nation not bound by international law, but that's another matter.

The point is, you reap what you sow, and the US, in its Global War on Terror, has sown a lot of death, murder and destruction, which will inevitably return to US shores as the same kind of thing.

Abdulazeez, if he was a combatant, deserves credit really, at least for following the rules of war. He appears to have focused his killing remarkably well on actual military personnel. There were no civilian casualties in his attacks, no children killed or even wounded.

(UPDATE: There have been some reports since this article was written suggesting that Abdulazeez, while a native of the Middle East, was a naturalized US citizen. If this turns out to be the case, then his actions in killing US troops would arguably treason if he was acting on behalf of a foreign power, but the argument still holds that he would not simply be a "terrorist.")



story | by Dr. Radut